[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: Horner's Pachy Lumpin' - Your Thoughts?

--- On Sat, 1/9/10, Michael Erickson <tehdinomahn@live.com> wrote:

> From: Michael Erickson <tehdinomahn@live.com>
> Subject: RE: Horner's Pachy Lumpin' - Your Thoughts?
> To: "Dino List" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
> Received: Saturday, January 9, 2010, 9:03 AM

> >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Museum_f%C3%BCr_Naturkunde_Berlin._Fossil_Stygimoloch_spinifer_003.jpg
> That skull is not real. It is heavily reconstructed - it
> bears almost no resemblance to the few complete
> (unfortunately undescribed) _Stygimoloch_ skulls that are
> known. And if you take a look at this Wikipedia article:

Sorry Michael but the important parts of that skull, i.e the squamosals 
perietals, frontals, dome, spikes, etc are all real. Only the face and snout 
are reconstructed. It happens to be a Triebold reconstruction based on a 
privately owned specimen represented by the cast seen here:


I find it most interesting that you are so quick to make ad hominem attacks 
against Horner and Goodwin, where its only actual flaw is that it sinks a nomen 
Bakker, when just a few weeks ago you were lambasting everyone for rightfully 
dismissing the steaming pile of crap that is Gong et al 2009. 

Christopher Collinson

Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your 
favourite sites. Download it now